Death Penalty Foes Split Over Taking Issue to Supreme Court NY Times 11-3-15

WASHINGTON — In the long legal struggle against the death penalty, the future has in some ways never looked brighter.

In a passionate dissent in June, Justice Stephen G. Breyer invited a major challenge to the constitutionality of capital punishment. This fall, Justice Antonin Scalia all but predicted that the court’s more liberal justices would strike down the death penalty.

But lawyers and activists opposed to the death penalty, acutely conscious of what is at stake, are bitterly divided about how to proceed. Some say it is imperative to bring a major case to the court as soon as practicable. Others worry that haste may result in a losing decision that could entrench capital punishment for years.

Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke to attendees of the politics & eggs breakfast at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH on Wednesday.First Draft: Death Penalty Could Provide Debate Fodder for Hillary Clinton and Bernie SandersOCT. 30, 2015
Senator Bernie Sanders at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., on Wednesday.First Draft: On Senate Floor, Bernie Sanders Calls for Ending the Death PenaltyOCT. 29, 2015
Several states appear to be reluctant to use midazolam, a short-acting sedative, despite the Supreme Court allowing its use.Delays as Death-Penalty States Scramble for Execution DrugsOCT. 8, 2015
“If you don’t go now, there’s a real possibility you have blood on your hands,” said Robert J. Smith, a fellow at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute of Harvard Law School. His scholarship was cited in Justice Breyer’s dissent from a decision upholding the use of an execution drug that three death row inmates argued risked causing excruciating pain.

A dissent by Justice Stephen G. Breyer in June was seen as inviting a death penalty challenge. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times
But others are wary. “There are reasons to be cautious about pushing the court to a decision too early,” said Jordan M. Steiker, a law professor at the University of Texas.

The divide is partly generational. Many veteran litigators have suffered stinging setbacks in the Supreme Court, and they favor an incremental strategy. They would continue to chip away at the death penalty in the courts, seek state-by-state abolition and try to move public opinion.

Some younger lawyers and activists urge a bolder course: to ask the Supreme Court to end capital punishment nationwide right away.

Though Justice Breyer’s dissent was joined only by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the more aggressive advocates are confident they can persuade five justices to do away with a punishment explicitly contemplated in the Fifth and 14th Amendments, which call for grand juries in federal cases involving “a capital or other infamous crime” and say that no person may be deprived “of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” That means picking up the votes of not only the rest of the court’s liberal wing — Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — but also, crucially, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Evan J. Mandery, the author of “A Wild Justice,” a history of the last major challenges to the death penalty in the 1970s, said there were good arguments on both sides of whether to mount such an effort.

“It’s a very complicated gamble,” he said. “The fear is that if you push and you lose, you could end up worse off.”

All concerned agree that much has changed since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, four years after it had effectively struck it down. Last year, only seven states carried out executions. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have abolished the death penalty entirely, seven of them in the last decade.

Governors and courts have imposed moratoriums in others, and the number of death sentences and executions continues to drop. The Supreme Court itself has barred the execution of juvenile offenders, people with intellectual disabilities and those convicted of crimes against individuals other than murder in the last decade.

The more cautious, step-by-step approach would ask the court to further narrow the availability of the death penalty by, for instance, forbidding the execution of mentally ill people and of accomplices who did not kill anyone. The more assertive one would introduce a broad case aimed at the death penalty itself.

Both sides look to history for instruction, but they draw different lessons.

Justice Breyer has told friends that his dissent was partly inspired by a similar one a half-century before. The earlier dissent, by Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, helped create the modern movement for the abolition of the death penalty and led to a four-year moratorium on executions.

The 1963 dissent, in Rudolph v. Alabama, was drafted by a law clerk, Alan M. Dershowitz, who would go on to become a law professor at Harvard and a prominent litigator. A young Stephen G. Breyer began his own clerkship with Justice Goldberg the year after.

Collecting data on national and international practice, Justice Goldberg’s dissent urged the court to hear a case on whether the death penalty for rape violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

“The goal was to ask litigators to start raising challenges to the death penalty,” Professor Dershowitz said. “It was an invitation to litigation. It was not a common tactic back then, and we were much criticized for it.”

The dissent spurred the creation of capital litigation projects at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Justice Breyer’s dissent was far more elaborate. It was 46 pages long, included charts and maps, and set out in detail the argument that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

Professor Dershowitz said he was delighted that another former clerk of Justice Goldberg’s was carrying on his old boss’s project.

“The goal in both cases is to encourage the court to play a more active role and to encourage litigants,” he said.

But opinions vary about the correct reading of the aftermath of the Goldberg dissent. Some veteran opponents of the death penalty noted that it took nine years of methodical litigation after the 1963 dissent before the Supreme Court effectively struck down the death penalty in 1972 in Furman v. Georgia. Even then, they said, the effort in the end yielded only a relatively brief moratorium.

Sherrilyn Ifill, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which has long played a central role in the fight against the death penalty, chose her words carefully in response to questions about her group’s current strategy.

Many tough on crime conservative politicians seem to be agreeing now that our mass incarceration has gone to extremes. They call for reform…
Meredith 7 hours ago
Every article on this should cite that the EU nations have abolished the death penalty. The US can’t pretend the Equal Protection Clause…
don shipp 7 hours ago
The Eighth Amendment forbids “cruel and unusual punishments” Is it unusual? Yes! The number executed compared to the number sentenced is…
SEE ALL COMMENTS
“There is something undoubtedly powerful in having a Supreme Court justice lay out the brief for the unconstitutionality of the death penalty and to issue the challenge,” she said. But it is Justice Kennedy and not Justice Breyer, she said, whose vote will be crucial.

Litigators who work in cases in states committed to the death penalty said they were not counting on a general reprieve from the Supreme Court.

“The Breyer dissent was a dissent that two justices signed,” said David R. Dow, a law professor at the University of Houston and the founder of the Texas Innocence Network.

“I don’t get too excited about two justices,” he added. “The Breyer dissent means so little in terms of the imminent demise of the death penalty that I wouldn’t spend any time on it.”

On the other side of the debate is the Eighth Amendment Project, a new group seeking prompt action.

He said he understood why some were skeptical. “Lawyers are by their nature cautious,” he said. “When you’ve been part of the killing fields of Texas, you have to concentrate on your clients and you don’t have the luxury of thinking, ‘What if?’ ”

Mr. Hill said one case from Texas might serve as the right vehicle to mount a broad challenge. It concerns Julius Murphy, who was convicted of robbing and killing a stranded motorist. Among his lawyers is Neal K. Katyal, a prominent Supreme Court litigator and a former law clerk to Justice Breyer.

“After Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion,” Mr. Katyal said, “the time to test his views in the crucible of argument before the full court has come.”

In a brief to Texas’ highest court for criminal matters, Mr. Katyal’s law firm devoted a substantial passage to a direct attack on the death penalty, echoing Justice Breyer’s dissent. Should the Texas court rule against Mr. Murphy, an appeal to the Supreme Court seems inevitable.

In the meantime, the Eighth Amendment Project is hard at work identifying other cases that could serve as vehicles to end the death penalty, ideally ones involving impulsive crimes, intellectual disability and claims of innocence. Among the cases it hopes to avoid are ones arising from killings of police officers, murders for hire and torture. Whatever the eventual case, the group wants to have dozens of friend-of-the-court briefs ready for filing.

Professor Dershowitz said a vigorous litigation strategy was the right approach.

“Justice Breyer would not have written this dissent if he did not think this was a good time to bring cases to the attention of the court,” he said. “Now it’s up to litigants to figure out the right case.”

Contact Information

The Law Offices of Prosper A. Bellizia handles a wide range of Criminal Law cases especially designed for your legal needs. Call us today at (732) 455-5018 for more information and schedule a free initial consultation.

Connect with Us:

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.